R. v. Anand
Even assuming nondisclosure of the statutory declarations, the missing material would not have changed the result; the variance between invoice and quote was immaterial and there were reasonable grounds to trace funds via bank records; although seeking personal documents constituted a s.8 breach, the breach was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 857
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Anil Anand; Appellant: Ashwani Anand
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 December 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Conviction (superior Court of Justice, Conviction Entered January 26, 2011)
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Production Order, Disclosure Obligations, Statutory Declarations, Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Exclusion of Evidence, Tracing of Funds, Sufficiency of Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Anil Anand
Appellant
Ashwani Anand
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Conviction (superior Court of Justice, Conviction Entered January 26, 2011)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the production order should have been granted given nondisclosure of statutory declarations and exhibit and adequacy of the information
- 2 Whether seeking personal documents violated s.8 of the Charter
- 3 Whether evidence obtained in breach of s.8 should be excluded under s.24(2)
Ratio Decidendi
Even assuming nondisclosure of the statutory declarations, the missing material would not have changed the result; the variance between invoice and quote was immaterial and there were reasonable grounds to trace funds via bank records; although seeking personal documents constituted a s.8 breach, the breach was not sufficiently serious and the evidence was reliable and minimally impairing of Charter interests so it was not excluded under s.24(2); the evidence at trial was overwhelming and convictions must be upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
Orders
- Appeals dismissed
- Convictions upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Anand Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-12-05 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 857 Docket numbers C54353 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; MacPherson, James C.; Pepall, Sarah E. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Anand, 2012 ONCA 857 DATE: 20121204 DOCKET: C54353 Rosenberg, MacPherson and Pepall JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Anil Anand and Ashwani Anand Appellants Leora Shemesh, for the appellants Amy M. Alyea, for the respondent Heard: December 3, 2012 On appeal from the conviction entered on January 26, 2011 by Justice Frank N. Marrocco of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The principal submission by the appellants is that the production order should not have been granted because of the failure to disclose the statutory declarations and exhibit and that the information did not support the granting of the order. [2] We agree with the trial judge that had the statutory declarations been disclosed it would not have led to a different result. The difference between the invoice and the quote was not material. There were grounds to believe that tracing the funds through the bank documents would assist in the investigation. [3] The trial judge properly found that the personal documents should not have been sought and there was therefore a s. 8 violation. But, we also agree with the trial judge that the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2). The officer was clearly careless but in the circumstances this did not render the violation so serious as to lead to exclusion given the minimal impact on Charter-protected interests and the reliability of the evidence. [4] As to the trial proper, the evidence was overwhelming. While the appellants raised various arguments as to why the appellants might not have been involved in Mr. Pal’s fraud, on this record those arguments were mere speculation. [5] Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.